JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 35950 of 2006. Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition had been dismissed. The appellant has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, impugned in the writ petition aforesaid wherein it has been stated that as the panel which selected the appellant has been cancelled in pursuance of the decree dated 10.4.1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mainpuri in suit No. 103 of 1990 filed by Raghubir Singh, the appointment of the petitioner would not be in accordance with law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri is receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and is placed on the list of aided-college. The appellant was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in the college where he had been working as such. It appears that an advertisement for the post of Principal was advertised under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982. The appellant applied for the post and was selected. His name was also recommended by the Commission by letter dated 20th December, 1984 for the post of principal. Pursuant thereof the DIOS issued order dated 9th of January, 1985 directing the Manager of the College for issuing appointment letter in favour of the appellant appointing him as duly selected principal of the Institution but before any action could be taken by the Management, the Manager of the college Sri Raghubir Singh preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13988 of 1984 challenging the advertisement for the post of principal against which the appellant had applied for. An interim order was also granted by the Court on 9.10.1984 directing that selection for the post of principal by the Commission may be held but appointment letter shall not be issued. 4. The interim order dated 9.10.1984 reads thus: “Learning standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks’ time for filing counter-affidavit. List the petition for admission immediately on the expiry of three weeks. 4. The interim order dated 9.10.1984 reads thus: “Learning standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks’ time for filing counter-affidavit. List the petition for admission immediately on the expiry of three weeks. Meanwhile, whereas in pursuance of the impugned advertisement issued on 23rd June, 1984 selection may be held, the respondent No. 3 shall not issue any letter of appointment to the persons selected till further order.” 5. The writ petition filed by Sri Rajendra Singh aforesaid was thereafter dismissed as withdrawn vide order and judgment dated 16.12.89 vacating the interim order dated 9.10.1984. 6. After dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant again applied for joining which was refused by the Committee of Management. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21150 of 1990 for relief with regard to payment of salary w.e.f. 15.5.1990 of the post of principal. Consequent to the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 13988 of 1984 the appellant moved an application dated 21.12.89 to the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri requesting him for issuance of appointment letter to the appellant in view of the selection made by the Commission. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 23.12.1989 directed the Committee of Management for appointing the appellant but no appointment letter was issued to him by the Management. This compelled the appellant to make a complaint against the Committee of Management to the DIOS. The DIOS again issued letter dated 27.2.1990 to the Committee of Management for taking appropriate action in the matter pursuant to the selection of the appellant on the post of principal but even then the appellant was not appointed. Aggrieved, the appellant moved a representation dated 13.3.1990 to the Regional Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra who vide his letter dated 15.5.1990 directed the Committee of Management to pay salary of the appellant from the date of issuance of appointment letter to him. Even then the appellant was neither appointed as principal nor the salary of the said post was paid to him. 7. Even then the appellant was neither appointed as principal nor the salary of the said post was paid to him. 7. It appears that Committee of Management Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri through its Manager Sri Raghubir Singh filed Suit No. 103 of 1990, Committee of Management Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri through its Manager Sri Raghubir Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from appointing the principal selected for the institution by the Commission pursuant to letter No. 17-738-41/84-85 dated 9.1.1985 as it has become a nullity and has lost its effect after a period of one year. This suit was filed on the ground that rule 7 sub- clause (2) of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1981 provides that selected list will remain effective only for a period of one year. 8. Since the appellant was selected candidate by the Commission for the post of principal in the institution, he moved the Court in suit proceedings by means of an impleadment application which was rejected. The suit was thereafter, decided vide order and judgment dated 10.4.1991 in which the appellant was not made a party by the Committee of Management nor his impleadment application was allowed by the Court. 9. It appears that the Committee of Management, however, appointed the appellant as principal of the college vide order dated 19.6.2006 in view of the directions issued in various proceedings. Consequently, the appellant claims to have joined the post of principal of the college on 30.6.2006 pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter dated 19.6.2006. Thereafter, the Committee of Management appears to have sent a letter to the DIOS requesting him for attesting the signatures of the appellant as principal to enable him to discharge financial and administrative duties in accordance with law while working on the post of principal of the college. The DIOS vide his order dated 3.7.2006 declined to attest the signatures of the appellant on the ground that appointment of the appellant as principal of the college would be illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge, Mainpuri dated 10.4.91 in Suit No. 103 of 1990. The DIOS vide his order dated 3.7.2006 declined to attest the signatures of the appellant on the ground that appointment of the appellant as principal of the college would be illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Civil Judge, Mainpuri dated 10.4.91 in Suit No. 103 of 1990. The order dated 3.7.2006 read thus- dk;kZy; ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] eSuiqjh i=kad f’k0 la0 A 3514 fnukad 3-7-2006 izca/kd] n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst] f/kjkSj eSuijhsA Ñi;k vius i=kad% eseks @ fnukad 22-6-2006 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa ftlds }kjk vkius Jh nsosUnz flag] lgk;d&v/;kid dks Jh ckjs yky izoDrk@ dk;Zokgd iz/kkukpk;Z] n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst f/kjkSj] eSuiqjh ds lsok&fuo`Rr gksus ds QsyLo:i fjDr in ij izHkkjh iz/kkukpk;Z fu;qfDr dj gLrk{kj izekf.kr djus dh ekWx bl dk;kZy; ls dh gS 2& vki voxr gh gS fd vkids fo|ky; ds iwoZ izcU/kd Jh j?kqohj flag }kjk ;ksftr okn la[;k 103@190 esa ikfjr eku0 flfoy tt eSuiqjh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 10-4-1991 ds }kjk Jh nsosUnz flag ds iSuy dks fuLr dj fn;k x;k Fkk A ftlds vk/kkj ij vc Jh nsosUnz flag lgk;d&v/;kid dks iz/kkukpk;Z ds in ij fu;qfDr fd;k tkuk fof/k laxr ugha gS g0 viBuh; dq0 ¼vkn’kZ½ ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd eSuiqjh AÞ 10. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 35950 of 2006, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order and judgment dated 8.7.2008. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this special appeal. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.2008 reads thus : “The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3rd July, 2006, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, whereby the District Inspector of Schools had refused to accede to the request of the Committee of Management to appoint the petitioner as the principal of the institution. Before coming to the facts of this case, it is essential to narrate a brief history, which led to the filing of the present writ petition. It transpires that the petitioner was a teacher in L.T. Grade and a post of principal was advertised under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, in which, the petitioner applied, and by a letter dated 20th December, 1984, the Commission recommended the name of the petitioner as the principal of the institution. It transpires that the petitioner was a teacher in L.T. Grade and a post of principal was advertised under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, 1982, in which, the petitioner applied, and by a letter dated 20th December, 1984, the Commission recommended the name of the petitioner as the principal of the institution. Based on the said recommendation of the Commission, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order dated 9th January, 1985 directing the Manager of the institution to issue an appointment letter. It transpires that before any action could be taken by the management, one Rajendra Singh filed Writ Petition No. 13988 of 1984 against the said advertisement, and an interim order was issued directing that the selection may go on, but no appointment letter should be issued. This writ petition was subsequently withdrawn on 16th December, 1989, and after its dismissal, the petitioner again applied for joining, which was refused by the Management. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 21150 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner praying that he should be paid salary w.e.f. 15.5.1990 on the post of principal. In this petition, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Committee of Management, alleging that the petitioner was only an assistant teacher and was not a lecturer, and was, therefore, not qualified to be appointed as the principal, and that, the Committee of Management had filed suit No. 103 of 1990 which was decreed by judgment dated 10th April, 1991 and a permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from compelling them from enforcing the selection of the principal vide letter dated 9th January, 1985, which had become invalid after the lapse of one year. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 4th August, 1999 directing the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently, another Writ Petition No. 55126 of 2003 was filed praying for a writ of mandamus to give effect to the order dated 9th January, 1985 and appoint the petitioner on the post of principal w.e.f. 15.5.1990. This writ petition was merely filed and no notices were ever issued, and today, it has been dismissed as infructuous on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. This writ petition was merely filed and no notices were ever issued, and today, it has been dismissed as infructuous on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. It has been stated that based on the recommendation made by the Commission in the year 1984, the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter dated 19th June, 2006 and had forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary attestation of the signatures, and that the District Inspector of Schools, by the impugned order of 3rd July, 2006, has arbitrarily passed the order refusing to appoint the petitioner as the principal. Having heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is patently misconceived and is a misuse of the process of the Court. No relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The recommendation made by the Commission in the year 1984 lost its efficacy and could not be enforced after the lapse of 22 years, as contemplated under Rule 7(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983. Further, a permanent injunction has been issued restraining the authorities from compelling the Committee of Management from enforcing the selection of the principal vide letter dated 9th January, 1985. This injunction is still in force and has not been set aside by any Court of law. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5126 of 2003, praying that the order dated 9th January, 1985 should be enforced, which has been dismissed today as infructuous on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, this Court is of the opinion that no order of appointment dated 19.6.2006 could be issued by the Committee of Management in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that a principal is already functioning in the institution, whose appointment has already been approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Not only this, the appointment letter could not be issued by the Committee of Management on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission after 22 years. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this writ petition and is dismissed summarily.” 11. Not only this, the appointment letter could not be issued by the Committee of Management on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission after 22 years. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this writ petition and is dismissed summarily.” 11. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Mainpuri has no binding effect on the rights of the petitioner in view of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC which specifically provides that the Courts are entitled to determine the respective rights of the parties; and that the petitioner cannot be victimized on basis of the said ex parte judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 103 of 1990, Committee of Management, Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri filed through Manager Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. and others and that the observation of learned Single Judge impugned in the judgment in the writ petition to the effect that allegation of the Committee of Management that the appellant was only an Assistant Teacher and not a lecturer, hence he was not qualified to be appointed as principal is wrong for the reason that no such averment has been made in the counter-affidavits filed by the Committee of Management and the DIOS. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has relied upon the judgment rendered in Williams v. Lourdusamy and another, JT 2008(5) SC 571, wherein it has been observed thus : “The principles of res judicata although provide for a statutory principle that no person shall be harassed again and again, have its own limitations. In O.S. No. 402 of 1987, the respondent No. 2 was not impleaded as a party. In his absence therefore, the issue as to whether respondent No. 2 had entered into an oral agreement of sale or not could not have been adjudicated upon. The said Court had no jurisdiction in that behalf. If that was decided in the said suit, the findings would have been nullities.” 13. It is further submitted that the provisions of Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 1983 Rules) can have no effect on the rights of the appellant to continue and discharge his duties as principal of the college. It is further submitted that the provisions of Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 1983 Rules) can have no effect on the rights of the appellant to continue and discharge his duties as principal of the college. It is stated that Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra vide his order dated 15th May, 1990 exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 17(1)(2) of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Act) directed the Management to appoint the appellant as principal of the college and for payment of his salary, hence the provisions of Rule 7(2) of the 1983 Rules cannot operate to defeat the order passed in statutory exercise of powers under Section 17 of the 1982 Act and that no party can be permitted to violate a lawful order and gain advantage from it i.e. it cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong but the learned Single Judge has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 14. It is submitted that the controversy involved in the present case was not for enforcing the selection panel constituted in the year 1985 which had already exhausted as the Director had already exercised his powers under Section 17 of the 1982 Act holding that the appellant is entitled to be appointed. This order had become final. As the order of the Director in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Act in earlier writ petition No. 55126 of 2003 had been given effect to, therefore, the appellant did not pursue the said writ petition and made a statement that it may be dismissed as infructuous and the order of the Director had become final. Subsequently, the Management also had itself given appointment to the appellant by means of order dated 19.6.2006. 15. Subsequently, the Management also had itself given appointment to the appellant by means of order dated 19.6.2006. 15. It is next submitted that the learned Single Judge has not been able to appreciate the appellant’s contention that the DIOS has no power under the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for refusing to attest the signatures of the appellant who had admittedly been appointed as Principal and as such the impugned order dated 3.7.2006 is void and incompetent; that the rights of the parties crystallized on the day they initiated proceedings in the Court and as the appellant had been fighting all along for giving effect to the panel by filing various writ petitions, it cannot be said that his rights have extinguished due to delay; that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in considering the validity of the selection panel framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and being an exhaustive Code, it is not open to question the decision taken under it by filing a civil suit; and that when appointment of a principal has been stayed by the High Court by an interim order, the period of one year contemplated under the provisions of Rule 7 of the 1983 Rules stands extended for the period, the selection panel could not be given effect due to the Court’s order and the learned Single Judge has also failed to consider: that suit No. 103 of 1990 was deliberately filed and with mala fide intention to prevent the appellant from participating in the suit proceedings aforesaid. 16. The order of the Regional Director of Eduction, Agra Region, Agra after the decision of the suit was not challenged anywhere by the Committee of Management of the college. Ultimately by order dated 19.6.2006 the Committee of Management complied with directions issued in various proceedings and issued an appointment letter dated 19.6.2006 to the appellant appointing him as principal of the college. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter the appellant joined the post of principal in the college on 30.6.2006. Ultimately by order dated 19.6.2006 the Committee of Management complied with directions issued in various proceedings and issued an appointment letter dated 19.6.2006 to the appellant appointing him as principal of the college. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter the appellant joined the post of principal in the college on 30.6.2006. Appointment letter dated 19.6.2006 reads thus: lsok esa] nsosUnz flag iq= Jh ek/kks flag xzke& dhBksr] iks0 djSjk] ftyk&fQjkstkckn fu;qfDr i= fo"k;&Jh nsosUnz flag l0 v0 ¼vk;ksx }kjk p;fur iz/kkukpk;Z½ dks vk;ksx ls p;u ds QyLo:i iz/kkukpk;Z in ij fu;qfDr i= fuxZr ds lEcU/k esaA i=kad% fu;q-& fnukad@19-6-2006 193@06&07 egksn;] vkidks lwfpr djuk gS fd ek/fed f’k{kk lsok vk;ksx m0iz0 bykgkckn ds p;u o ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] eSuiqjh ds i= fn0 9-1-1985 o Jheku mi f’k{kk funs’kd] vkxjk ds vkns’k i= la0 1446&50 fnukad 15-5-1990 o ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn dh fjV la0 21150@90 esa vkns’k fnukad 4-8-1999 ds vkèkkj ij vkidks bl fo|ky; essa iz/kkukpk;Z ds in osru :0 10]000&15]200 ds dze esa fu;qfDr fd;k tkrk gSA vki viuh ;ksxnku lwpuk ,d lIrkg ds vUnj nsaA vU;Fkk fu;qfDr fujLr le>h tk;sxh A g0 /keZsUnz flag izcU/kd n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst f/kjksj] eSuiqjh “ 17. The petitioner pursuant to his selection as principal by the Commission and order dated 19.6.2006 joined the post of principal and charge of the post of principal of Dayanand Inter College was taken by him on 30.6.2006. This letter is appended as Annexure-10 to the appeal and read thus : Þdk;kZy;% izcU/kd n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst] f/kjkSj] eSuiqjh A fnukad 30-6-2006 izHkkj eqDr@xzg.k izek.k i= izcU/kd n;kuUn b.Vzj dkyst f/kjkSj] eSuiqjh ds vkns’k la0 193&3 fn0 19-6-2006 ds }kjk Jh ckjs yky iz/kk0 n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst] fèkjkSj eSuiqjh dsfn0 30-6-2006 ls lsok eqDr gksus ds QyLo:i iz/kkukpk;Z n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst] f/kjkSj eSuiqjh dk inHkkj Jh nsosUnz flag dks vkt fn0 30-6-2006 vijkUg esa gLrxr djk;k x;k A g0 vLi"V 30-6-2006 g0 vLi"V dk;ZeqqDr vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj 30-6-2006 dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus okys vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj g0 /kesUnz flag izcU/kd n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst] f/kjkSj& eSuiqjhAÞ 18. He also relied upon the provisions of Section 22 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 which reads thus: “22. He also relied upon the provisions of Section 22 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 which reads thus: “22. Punishment for appointment of teachers in contravention of the provisions of the Act.—Any person who fails to comply with the recommendations of the Board or fails to comply with the order or direction of the Director under Section 17 or appoints a teacher in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.” 19. According to him, this Section penalizes any person who fails to comply with the recommendations of the Commission/ Board or fails to comply with the order or directions made by the Director. Therefore, in this view of the matter it was incumbent on the part of the Committee of Management to ensure compliance of the Selection of the appellant as principal of the College and even Civil Suit No. 103 of 1990 filed by the Committee of Management, Dayanad Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri was not maintainable against the process of selection and no civil suit should have been decreed or entertained against the appellant for which he has not been impleaded as party. 20. It is lastly argued that U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act is a complete code in itself and provides for entire procedures of selection and also provides for the relief or remedy against any illegalities or irregularities committed during the process of selection and as such no civil suit for permanent injunction was at all maintainable. It is stated that the appellant has been regularly selected as principal of the College by the Commission and his joining has been illegally stalled by the respondents by filing writ petition which was subsequently withdrawn by them. 21. It is stated that the appellant has been regularly selected as principal of the College by the Commission and his joining has been illegally stalled by the respondents by filing writ petition which was subsequently withdrawn by them. 21. From perusal of the appointment letter dated 19.6.2006 it is apparent that the appellant was directed by the Manager, Daya Nand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri for giving his joining pursuant to his selection by the Commissiion and letters of the DIOs dated 9.1.1985 as well as letter dated 15.5.1990 of the Deputy Director of Education Agra and order of the High Court dated 4.8.1999 within a period of one week otherwise the appointment would be deemed to have been cancelled and as the appellant took charge on 30.6.2006, his appointment came to be cancelled automatically on expiry of the period of one week from letter dated 19.6.2006, hence the appellant has no case and the DIOS has also rightly not attested the signatures of the appellant. 22. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the appellant has challenged the order passed by the DIOS refusing to attest his signatures on the ground that in suit No. 103 of 1990 filed on behalf of the Committee of Management, Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri through Sri Raghubir Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, the learned Civil Judge, Mainpuri had passed the order dated 10.4.1991 cancelling the panel selecting the appellant which is appended as Annexure-A-1 to thewrit petition. 23. It appears that the appellant sought appointment on the post of principal in the college by moving an application dated 21.12.1989 to the DIOS, Mainpuri requesting him to issue appointment letter to the appellant in view of his selection as principal made by the Selection Committee. The DIOS by means of letter dated 23.12.1989 is said to have directed the Committee of Management to take appropriate action for issuance of appointment letter to the appellant but the same was not issued. The appellant then complained to the DIOS against the Committee of Management upon which he issued another letter dated 27.2.1990 to the Committee of Management of the College for taking appropriate action pursuant to the selection of the appellant by the Commission. 24. The appellant then complained to the DIOS against the Committee of Management upon which he issued another letter dated 27.2.1990 to the Committee of Management of the College for taking appropriate action pursuant to the selection of the appellant by the Commission. 24. Further according to the appellant, even then the Committee of Management did not issue any appointment letter to him, hence he moved another representation dated 13.3.1990 to the Regional Director of Eduction Agra, Region Agra, upon which a letter dated 15.5.1990 was issued to the Committee of Management for payment of salary to the appellant from the date of issuance of appointment letter to him. Still appointment letter was not issued to the appellant. 25. It is in these circumstances Civil Suit No. 103 of 1990, Manager of Committee of Management, Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri v. State of U.P. and others, was filed for permanent injunction in which the appellant moved an application for impleadment which was rejected by the Court below and the suit was thereafter decided by judgment and order dated 10.4.1991. It is in these circumstances Civil Suit No. 103 of 1990, Manager of Committee of Management, Dayanand Inter College, Ghiror, Mainpuri v. State of U.P. and others, was filed for permanent injunction in which the appellant moved an application for impleadment which was rejected by the Court below and the suit was thereafter decided by judgment and order dated 10.4.1991. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated10.4.1991 is as under : Þoknh us vius dFku ds leFkZu essa lk{; tfj;s 'kiFk i= fy;s tkus dk vkosnu i= 43 x nkf[ky fd;k gS tks Lohdkj gqvk vr% 'kiFk i= 44 x izca/kd Jh j?kqohj }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftlds }kjk okn i= ds dFkuksa dk leFZku iw.kZ fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr QnZ lcwr 10 x 1 ls 6 fdrk QksVks LVsV oknh ftlesa 11 x ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd eSuiqjh }kjk fy[kk x;k i= fnukad 23-12-1989 tks izca/kd n;kuUn b.Vj dkyst f/kjkSj eSuiqjh }kjk izca/kd dks fn;s x;s vkosnu dh QksVks LVsV 13 x izca/kd }kjk ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dks fnukad 15-1-1990 dk i= 14 x ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dk izca/kd dks fy[kk i= fnukad 27-2-1990 o i=ksa dh QksVks LVsV izfr;ka nkf[ky dh xbZ gSa A eSustesUV ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us esjk /;ku mRrj izns’k ,tqds’ku eSuqvy ds fjIys’kul ds vUrxZr ifjf’k"Vd esa laLFkk ds iz/kku dh vfuok;Z vgZrkvksa dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k ftlds vuqlkj d{kk 9 o 12 rd i<~kus dk dksbZ vuqHko ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr ,0vkbZ0vkj0 fnukad 1990 loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vfuok;Z vgZrkvksa ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh NwV nsus dk vf/kdkj lsok vk;ksx dks ugha gSA ftlds vuq:i lsok vk;ksx }kjk fd;k x;k 9-1-1985 =qfViw.kZ gSA oknh ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk }kjk lsok vk;ksx fu;ekoyh 1983 ds fu;e 7 mifu;e&2 dks Li"V fd;k gS fd vk;ksx }kjk fd;k x;k p;u ds uksVhfQds’ku ds fnukad ls ,d lky rd oS/k jgsxkA bl mifu;e esa 'kCn p;u uksVhfQds’ku ds fnukad vR;f/kd egRoiw.kZ gSA bl izdkj Hkh lsok vk;ksx ds lHkkifr ds i= vFkok muds vfèkoDrk dh jk; fdlh Hkh izdkj ekU; ugha gks ldrh gS D;ksafd LFkxu vkns’k ds lekIr gksus dk fnukad fdlh Hkh lwjr esa p;u ds uksVhfQds’ku dk fnukad ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA mijksDr foospu ds ifjisz{; esa esjh jk; esa oknh dk okn vkns’k 8 fu;e egRoiww.kZ 10 tk0nh0 ds rgr ifjO;; lfgr fMxzh gksus ;ksX; gS vkns’k nkok oknh fo:) izfroknh x.k vkns’k 8 fu;e&10 tk0nh0 ds rgr ifjO;; lfgr fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izfroknhx.k ds foL) oknh }kjk pkgh xbZ LFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gS\ fnukad 10 vizSy 1991 gLrk{kj viBuh; 10-4-1991 ¼vkj0 lh0 xqIrk½ flfoy tt eSuiqjhAÞ 26. As regard suit No. 103 of 1990 is concerned, it was not filed challenging the appointment of the petitioner but was filed for restraining the selected person from joining the post of principal as select list had lost its life after the Civil Judge had cancelled the panel by which the petitioner had been selected. This suit can have no consequence on the rights of the appellant as he was not a party. The appellant had also been issued appointment letter dated 19.6.2006 later on by the Committee of Management directing the appellant to give him joining on the post of principal. 27. Misplaced reliance having been placed by the DIOS on the order passed in Civil suit No. 103 of 1990 in which the appellant was neither made a party by the then Manager of the College nor his application for impleadment was allowed. Therefore, the order in the aforesaid suit could not effect his interest especially when he himself had sought impleadment in the suit as he was going to be directly affected by the relief prayed for by the plaintiff in that case and the order rejecting his impleadment application and the granting permanent injunction by the Court. 28. Regard may also be had to the fact that permanent appointment on the post of principal could not have been restrained by the DIOS in the garb of order passed in suit No. 103 of 1990 particularly when the appellant has been selected by the Commission under the provisions of Statute as stated above. 29. To our mind, the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 has travelled beyond the reasons given by the DIOS in the impugned order particularly when the law is settled that Court examining the validity of an order is to confine itself to the reasons given in the order and not beyond the reasons. 30. 29. To our mind, the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 has travelled beyond the reasons given by the DIOS in the impugned order particularly when the law is settled that Court examining the validity of an order is to confine itself to the reasons given in the order and not beyond the reasons. 30. It appears from letter dated 3.7.2006 that the appellant could not join the post even though he is selected candidate by the Commission merely because some legal impediment was created by the then Manager of the Institution who appears to be having some ulterior motive or grudge against the appellant as a result of which the charge of the post of principal having been given to the appellant on retirement of Sri Bare Lal, the then principal at the relevant time and letter of appointment having been issued by the new Manager to the appellant for his joining as principal, it cannot be said that the appellant has no right to work as principal of the institution. The DIOS appears to have committed an error in the facts and circumstances of this case in not attesting the signatures of the appellant as principal of the college for the reason that neither the judgment in the suit was binding upon the appellant nor there can be a permanent injunction not to appoint any person selected by the Commission particularly when Section 16-E of the statute i.e. U.P. Intermediate Act read with U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 provide appointment on the post of Principal by selection. 31. Learned Single Judge has, therefore, wrongly held that the writ petition is patently misconceived and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The recommendation made by the Commission cannot lost its efficacy due to proceedings pending before Courts and other authorities in which interim orders have been granted. 32. 31. Learned Single Judge has, therefore, wrongly held that the writ petition is patently misconceived and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The recommendation made by the Commission cannot lost its efficacy due to proceedings pending before Courts and other authorities in which interim orders have been granted. 32. The DIOS also has no power either under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 refusing to attest the signatures of a selected principal which is necessary for his exercise of financial powers under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, also does not confer any power on the DIOS, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Committee of Management of the college to comply with the selection made under Sections 10 and 11 of the statute i.e. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. Section 11(4) of the Act envisages that the Management to pass order for appointment on receipt of intimation about selection but even such order cannot be issued due to any legal impediment. It was then incumbent upon the Committee of Management to issue appointment letter after the legal impediment no longer remained in existence due to withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 13988 of 1984 wherein the interim order was vacated. The action of the Committee of Management prior to issuance of appointment letter to the appellant dated 19.6.2006 was in violation of the mandatory requirement of law. 33. Note may also be had to the fact that the Director has already passed an order dated 15.5.1990 under the provisions of Section 17 of the 1982 Act, which was necessitated by the fact that the Management was refusing/failing to issue appointment order to the appellant. The provisions of Section 17 of the 1982 Act are mandatory in nature. The maxim of law that an act of Court shall harm no one squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. The matter has remained pending in the Court inspite of best efforts made by the petitioner and he has ultimately been appointed as principal of the college vide order dated 19.6.2006. The maxim of law that an act of Court shall harm no one squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. The matter has remained pending in the Court inspite of best efforts made by the petitioner and he has ultimately been appointed as principal of the college vide order dated 19.6.2006. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant was not qualified does not appeal to us for the reason that his qualifications were scrutinized by the Commission and thereafter he was selected. The Committee of Management has also issued appointment letter to him on 19.6.2005 subsequent to his selection. 34. The judgment of the Apex Court in Justice S.K.Ray v. State of Orrisa, JT 2003(1) 166, may also be referred wherein it has been held that the Court may grant appropriate relief even if it has not been prayed for. The learned Single Judge has not considered the specific averments of the petitioner regarding applicability of the order rejecting the impleadment application in the suit. The judgment in suit No. 103 of 1990 was ex parte and cannot operate against the appellant. 35. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 35950 of 2006 is quashed. Writ Petition No. 35950 of 2006 as well as the special appeal stand allowed. 36. No order as to costs. ——————